[2026:RJ-JP:2924] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6604/2003 Rajendra Kumar Bari S/o Shri Makhan Lal, aged about 30 years, R/o Ward No.82 Nawalgarh Road, Sikar ----Petitioner Versus 1. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Zonal Office Jeevan Prakash Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 3. Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation, Behind Collectorate, Sikar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Agrawal, Adv. with Mr. Satish Pareek, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/01/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the award dated 05.03.2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jaipur, whereby the reference made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for examining the legality, validity and propriety of termination of services of the petitioner has been answered against him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had worked with respondent-Life Insurance Corporation from 17.03.1999 to 09.06.1999 for a period of 85 days. However, thereafter, without preparing any seniority list and by violating the [2026:RJ-JP:2924] (2 of 3) [CW-6604/2003] principle of ‘last come, first go’, services of the petitioner were arbitrarily terminated, whereas the persons, who were junior to the petitioner namely Prahlad, Dinesh, Pawan, Mahesh and Govind were retained, which is clear cut violation of Section 25G of the Act of 1947, yet learned Tribunal has committed serious jurisdictional error in giving the finding that the provisions of Section 25G of the Act of 1947 are not attracted. 3. The writ petition was opposed by learned counsel for the respondents and he submitted that it was not a case of retrenchment and as the petitioner was appointed for a limited period w.e.f. 17.03.1999 to 09.06.1999. After completion of the tenure of initial engagement, he was discontinued which cannot be considered as the case of ‘retrenchment’ as defined in the Act of 1947. Learned counsel submits that the findings given by learned Tribunal with regard to violation of Section 25G and H are factual in nature, which is based upon the evidence on record and such finding of fact cannot be interfered with in writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is settled proposition of law that the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is very very limited and findings of fact given by the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence cannot be interfered by this Court as an appellate authority. In the instant case, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was appointed for a limited period and, therefore, the case of the [2026:RJ-JP:2924] (3 of 3) [CW-6604/2003] petitioner comes within the ambit of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 and under the circumstances, where there is factual finding that all the workmen named by the petitioner in his statement of claim were not continued, therefore, no case of violation of Section 25G was made out. There is nothing on record to controvert such finding of fact. Under these circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award, hence, writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /13